Christine Janis wrote:...(Mark you, if a single cell can *develop* into a complex multicelllar organism, then surely one can, over time, *evolve* into one?)

Your claim is not supported by genetics. A fertilised egg develops into a human because it is programmed with genetic information that determines the phenotype, whereas bacteria will remain bacteria because they do not have the genetic information to transform themselves into anything else. As I said before, you don’t have any good arguments so you need to resort to nonsense arguments such as this.

Your attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for the diaphragm, by cutting and pasting from someone else, fails miserably:

Christine Janis wrote:"...The diaphragm is important in lung ventilation, especially at high levels of activity. The diaphragm forms at the level of the thoraco-lumbar boundary, and the loss of lumbar ribs in cynodonts has long been thought to herald its evolutionary appearance. Many vertebrates have a transverse septum within their peritoneal cavity* that separates the lungs from the viscera, and stabilizes the viscera. The mammalian diaphragm is basically a muscularization of this septum, as can be seen in mammalian development. The muscles of the diaphragm share a common developmental origin with the muscles of the forelimb."

The scenario described (cut and pasted) will not work for many reasons. How were the alveoli in the lungs performing ventilation and perfusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide while the diaphragm was supposedly evolving over eons of time? What evolved first, the diaphragm or the neural innervations of the diaphragm?! As I mentioned earlier (and you did not answer), a partially evolved diaphragm will not function correctly and will result in respiratory failure and death. The forelimb muscles are controlled by motor neurons, whereas the diaphragm requires autonomic innervations to function. The basic rhythm of respiration is controlled by the respiratory centre in the brain stem. According the evolution, the respiratory centre of the brain could not have evolved for any plan or purpose, yet the respiratory centre performs the crucial purpose of regulating breathing. What irrational nonsense evolution is. The scenario you describe reveals a woeful misunderstanding of anatomy and physiology, and pathophysiology. Respiration won’t function, which will result in death. My statements above are based on real science, unlike your cut and pasted, fictitious scenario.

Last edited by Frank on Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

A question for you. Do you believe that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, like Christine Janis claims?!

Below is the latest summary of Janis' totally failed attempt to explain the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system:

1. She now claims that she is only describing ‘anatomy’ and is not describing the evolutionary origin of the CV system because I would not understand it. Of course the real reason why no evolutionary explanations for the CV system are provided is because none exist. 2. Doesn’t even understand how the CV system functions. Claims that the heart evolved in this sequence: myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction. The heart won’t function without cardiac conduction, so the vertebrate would be dead.3. Begins with a lancelet, which has a functioning circulatory system with pulsing arteries. No explanation of how this animal supposedly evolved is provided. The most crucial explanation required is how blood is pumped via a closed system of blood vessels to meet the metabolic needs of stationary body cells. Janis fails to provide any explanation at all.4. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.5. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.6. Claims that because a single celled zygote can develop into a multicellular organism, it should therefore be possible for bacteria to evolve into multicellular life over time. The analogy is false and is not supported by genetics.7. Ignores pathophysiology and seems to be oblivious to the adverse effects of abnormalities to structural and functional changes to body systems and organs.8. Fails completely to take into account the overall complexity of the CV system.9. Always evades providing any explanation when confronted with the details of the anatomical structure of the CV system. Waves the magic evolutionary wand repeatedly to evolve body systems.10. Repeatedly cuts and pastes from articles (that explain the evolutionary origin of nothing) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that she cannot even attempt to provide evolutionary explanations for the detailed functioning of the CV system. 11. Claims that both anatomical CV similarities and anatomical CV differences are evidence for evolution. So any similarities or differences in CV systems (all possibilities) are used to support evolution, which means it cannot be falsified. For example, the claim is made that because human embryos have six aortic arches and fish also have six aortic arches, this indicates common ancestry. However fish and humans have vastly different body structures, yet evolutionists claim they are related. So both similarities and differences are used to support evolutionary theory. No doubt if humans had five, seven, or any other number of aortic arches then this would be used to support evolutionary theory also. The argument is meaningless.12. It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV or respiratory systems.13. States that hagfish have no sympathetic or parasympathetic innervation of the heart and tries to use this as an excuse for not having to explain how the sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation of the human heart supposedly evolved.14. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of the closed system of coronary blood vessels is provided. Each coronary artery and vein in humans has three layers – tunica adventitia, tunica media and tunica intima, in addition to neural innervation of these vessels for vasodialation. It is claimed that coronary vessels evolved four separate times, which makes this evolutionary scenario orders of magnitude even more absurd.15. Fails to provide any explanation of the regulation of blood pressure, and the regulation of haemoglobin levels with erythropoietin and its negative feedback system.16. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes (red blood cells) required for the CV system in vertebrates is provided. Janis fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for erythrocytes by mentioning that lampreys and hagfishes have red blood cells without a skeletal system. The fact remains that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes for the CV system in vertebrates or invertebrates.17. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the renal system, which is used to filter blood for the CV system. This includes the mesonephric kidney of fish and amphibians and the metanephric kidney of reptiles, birds and mammals.18. Fails to explain the origin of the respiratory system, which is used for oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange for the CV system. The human diaphragm which is used for respiration is innervated by spinal nerves C3 – C5 and the external and internal intercostals are innervated by the thoracic spinal nerves T2 – T12.19. Resorts to logical fallacies including circular reasoning (begging the question), the ad hominen fallacy (name-calling), the either-or fallacy, and the strawman argument.20. Fabricates totally fictitious dialog between myself and her in a vain attempt to win the (strawman) argument. This has occurred at least twice.21. Doesn’t understand the difference between origins science and operations science.She cites examples of repeatable embryological development (neural innervation of the diaphragm) which is determined by pre-programmed genetic and epigenetic information that has nothing to do with origins science.22. Phylogenetics only shows nested hierarchies of biological characteristics. It depicts a simplistic view of the internal structure of living organisms and it fails to demonstrate evolution. An ancestor-descendant relationship could be imagined between a spoon, knife and fork but it fails to demonstrate how one of these supposedly evolved into another.23. Falsely accuses me of ‘quote mining’ when the only quote I included was one from evolutionist Franklin Harold in his book: ‘The Way of the Cell’.24. Commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The argument is in this form:

1. if p then q2. q3. therefore, p

and is fallacious. Although the truth of p ensures the truth of q, the reverse is not necessarily so, as the proposition q could be true even if p is false. So the argument is a fallacy. Here is one example:

1. If the earth was flat, we’d expect that the horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (if p then q)2. The horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (q)3. Therefore, the earth is flat. (therefore p)

The argument is fallacious. Here is Janis’ example:

1. If evolution were true, we’d expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)2. Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)3. Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)

The argument is fallacious because similar anatomical structures are predicted by intelligent design.

It seems that you don't have anything to contribute in this supposedly ''science only" forum about the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system.

Ah. The first crocus has pushed through the snow. The first cuckoo can be heard at eventide. And Frank has returned to the forum. It must be spring.

Frank, who believes that if only he can ridicule me enough (by, for example, insisting that the order of words I use in a sentence reveals the order in which I believe things occurred) he can hold back the tide of real science. Keep trying to shoot the messenger, Frank, it will make you feel better. But it will make no difference to scientific understanding of evolutionary biology.

Previously I challenged you to provide some evolutionary explanations for the cardiovascular system, and as I predicted you have made no attempt. All you seem capable of is the drivel that you have written above. As a reminder, here is one of my arguments against evolution that I presented to you before:

Frank wrote:Cardiac conduction:

If the excitation wave from the sino-atrial node travelled through the atria and straight into the ventricles, then there would not be enough time for the ventricles to fill with blood properly before contracting. The atrial impulses converge on the atrio-ventricular node and from there are directed along specialised conducting tissue, the bundle of His, which travel into the ventricular septum and then spread out into the ventricular myocardium. These specialised conducting fibres are ordered specifically to ensure that the contraction of the ventricular muscle fibres occurs in a precise manner, starting from the tips of the ventricles. Without this conducting system, the atria and ventricles would contract out of sequence and cause severe problems with blood circulation.

Christine Janis wrote:Just a very quick note as to how Frank has contradicted himself within his two posts.

Post of Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:39 pm

"the diaphragm requires autonomic innervations to function. "

Mar 20, 2017 10:51 pm

"The human diaphragm which is used for respiration is innervated by spinal nerves C3 – C5" (i.e., the somatic NS, not the autonomic NS)

Not true. Some skeletal muscle (such as the diaphragm) is controlled by the autonomic and the somatic divisions of the nervous system. The basic rhythm of respiration is controlled by the respiratory centre in the brain. The human diaphragm functions to allow breathing even when people are not aware of it, such as when they are sleeping. People can voluntarily increase the rate of their breathing as required. So both divisions of the nervous system do control the diaphragm.

"Previously I challenged you to provide some evolutionary explanations for the cardiovascular system, and as I predicted you have made no attempt." Well that looks suspiciously like a pointless clumsy lie for starters.

In my previous response I assumed that Frank was referring to the detailed responses that have been made to him here by Christine Janis. But I now see that he was simply arguing with Professor Tertius. Though I note that he is also questioning the accuracy of a statement made by Christine earlier this year - ie denying that he contradicted himself. I am in no position to confirm whether or not he is correct.